Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10
31
DB Cooper / Re: Flight Path And Related Issues
« Last post by Robert99 on October 18, 2020, 04:18:37 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It doesn’t matter if it was from 305 or not. It’s location doesn’t support a western flight path, and in fact places 305 farther east. Full stop.

I don’t see the purpose of parsing this.

Of course it matters if it's from 305. It's only the third piece of evidence found outside of the jet.

And yes, it would place 305 further east of the FBI Flight Path. That is important. Right?

It does indeed matter and it places 305 on the V-23 centerline, exactly where it should be at that point, while the FBI Flight Path in that area is several miles further west of the V-23 centerline.

There is absolutely nothing to suggest that any 727 flew with it aft stairs down, except the hijacked airliner, in that geographical area.  The FBI tests were done over the Pacific Ocean west of Seattle.  And in all probability, the original Boeing tests with the aft stairs down were done at Moses Lake, Washington east of the Cascade Mountains in Central Washington where Boeing had a test base.
32
DB Cooper / Re: Flight Path And Related Issues
« Last post by EU on October 18, 2020, 03:37:44 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It doesn’t matter if it was from 305 or not. It’s location doesn’t support a western flight path, and in fact places 305 farther east. Full stop.

I don’t see the purpose of parsing this.

Of course it matters if it's from 305. It's only the third piece of evidence found outside of the jet.

And yes, it would place 305 further east of the FBI Flight Path. That is important. Right?
33
DB Cooper / Re: Flight Path And Related Issues
« Last post by Chaucer on October 18, 2020, 03:24:40 PM »
It doesn’t matter if it was from 305 or not. It’s location doesn’t support a western flight path, and in fact places 305 farther east. Full stop.

I don’t see the purpose of parsing this.
34
DB Cooper / Re: Flight Path And Related Issues
« Last post by EU on October 18, 2020, 02:56:47 PM »
I am still waiting for someone to explain how an 8" X 40" part from INSIDE the airstairs area of a 727 airliner ends up in the woods if it wasn't from 305?

Now if you want to continue to ignore this inconvenient FACT and hang your hat on "the Boeing employee would have said it was
a piece of a part" well OK then. There's really nothing more I can add.

The part--or piece thereof--was from 305.

35
DB Cooper / Re: Flight Path And Related Issues
« Last post by Kermit on October 18, 2020, 02:15:41 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't make it a habit to post things as fact. I suggest things or show reasons to believe they are not factual or I would post my findings on the website as such. I don't try to push it onto people. I try to explain my reasoning and never turn assumptions into facts or make them appear that way.

I agree 100 % and I’m always open to opinions but having an opinion doesn’t make it a fact ! A perfect example is shown by the Memorandum posted by Shutter regarding the Cinabar find ! The hunter states that the part MIGHT be related to the D B Cooper hijacking. However it’s also contradicted by the statement that no part that large is missing from the Norjack plane ! I apply similar reasoning to the tie particles being very interesting but do those particles prove where Cooper worked ? I can go on and on talking about great opinions and great theories! I have a few of my own. However facts aren’t exactly outnumbering Theories in this case !
36
DB Cooper / Re: Flight Path And Related Issues
« Last post by georger on October 18, 2020, 01:27:06 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The document speaks for itself.

A piece of a Boeing 727 from INSIDE was found in the woods. The size and location of the piece line-up perfectly with the missing skirts. Yeah that’s pretty convincing.

Kind of like, the money that was found at Tena Bar that didn’t have the full serial numbers—only a partial—but nonetheless matches a portion of the serial number of one of Cooper’s bills can safely be assumed that it was a Cooper bill. To say, “well the entire serial number is not visible, therefore we can’t prove 100% that it’s a Cooper bill” is nuts.

Strike 3043!  You're OUT! 
37
DB Cooper / Re: Flight Path And Related Issues
« Last post by Shutter on October 18, 2020, 01:23:39 PM »
That's not even close in comparison. money is money and full serial numbers were noted. the condition was explained as well.

It does not say ANYWHERE a piece was found. it specifically states a part was found.
38
DB Cooper / Re: Flight Path And Related Issues
« Last post by EU on October 18, 2020, 01:16:51 PM »
The document speaks for itself.

A piece of a Boeing 727 from INSIDE was found in the woods. The size and location of the piece line-up perfectly with the missing skirts. Yeah that’s pretty convincing.

Kind of like, the money that was found at Tena Bar that didn’t have the full serial numbers—only a partial—but nonetheless matches a portion of the serial number of one of Cooper’s bills can safely be assumed that it was a Cooper bill. To say, “well the entire serial number is not visible, therefore we can’t prove 100% that it’s a Cooper bill” is nuts.
39
DB Cooper / Re: Flight Path And Related Issues
« Last post by Shutter on October 18, 2020, 01:02:19 PM »
I don't make it a habit to post things as fact. I suggest things or show reasons to believe they are not factual or I would post my findings on the website as such. I don't try to push it onto people. I try to explain my reasoning and never turn assumptions into facts or make them appear that way.
40
DB Cooper / Re: Flight Path And Related Issues
« Last post by Shutter on October 18, 2020, 12:45:08 PM »
It's logical speculation based on what has been said and mentioned. you don't come forward without all the facts to present. he mentions a part, not a piece of one. that's extremely important while trying to explain or prove something. looking up the part and failing to mention it's partial would be damaging to the find. simply stating it was found near the location of the path without even knowing where gives permission to rule out any given path? I don't believe he went out of his way to look the part number up and fail to say it was part of a larger piece or part. that would of pegged it off the chart. nothing verifies what it is. didn't you fail to find the part number on the material. how did a small piece have one?

The placard terminology states the placard location was near the read door. the Cinebar find states a similar terminology of it being above the rear door. which is right or wrong? two placards now have to come from 305 using this logic. one is 99 percent sure it came from the hijacked plane and it's not the Hicks placard.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10